Remanded

Mithilesh Kumar and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC6 May 2014CWJC/3389/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Mihir Kumar Jha held the writ application maintainable as petitioners were parties to the Tribunal proceedings. He quashed the Tribunal's order dated 18.07.2012 for erroneously mixing cases and remanded the matter for separate hearing of petitioners in strict accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the Tribunal's order dated 18.07.2012 in Case No. 18 of 2012 and remanded the matter with directions to hear parties separately and produce records.

Mithilesh Kumar and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3389 of 2013

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Mithilesh Kumar, Son of Sri Sawru Yadav, resident of villageSaunaha, P.S. Gowardhana (Dumri), District West Champaran

¶4

Bittu Kumar Pandey, Son of Sri Narmdeshwar Pandey, resident of village Khairwa Tola, P.S. Gowardhana, District West Champaran

¶5

Soni Kumari, Wife of Nirpendra Kumar, resident of village Darrole, P.S. Matiariya, District West Champaran

¶6

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources , Government of Bihar, Patna

¶9

Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶10

District Magistrate, West Champaran

¶11

District Education Officer, West Champaran

¶12

Sub divisional Education Officer, Bettiah, West Champaran

¶13

Block Development Officer, Gaunaha, District West Champaran

¶14

Block Education Extension Officer, Gaunaha, District West Champaran

¶15

Mukhia, Matiaria Gram Panchayat, P.S. Matiaria, District West Champaran

¶16

Panchayat Secretary, Matiaria Gram Panchayat, P.S. Matiaria, District West Champaran

¶17

District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, West Champaran through Its Member

¶18

Madhurendra Kumar Verma, Son of Shambhu Saran Verma, resident of village Shivganj, P.S. Shikarpur, District West Champaran

¶19

Chandresh Prasad Yadav. Son of Late Bunni Yadav, resident of village Matiaria, P.S. Lauriya, District West Champaran

¶20

Nisha Kumari Srivastava, Daughter of Late Yogendra Prasad Srivastava resident of village Raj Katcheri Narayanpur Ramnagar, P.S. Ramnagar, District West Champaran

¶21

Ranjana Kumari, Daughter of Yogendra Patwari, resident of village Bhelahi, P.S. Lauria, District West Champaran

¶22

Anil Kumar Yadav, Son of Nathuni Yadav, resident of village Shosha

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.3389 of 2013 (3) dt.06-05-2014

¶24

2/4

¶25

Phulwaria, P.S. Meghwal Mathia, District West Champaran

¶26

.... .... Respondent/s

¶27

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vasant Vikas, AC to S.C. 23. For the Respondent Nos. 12 to 16: Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3 06-05-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

Though at the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 12 to 16 had raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ application at the instance of the petitioners, this Court, on perusal of the record, would find that since the petitioners were impleaded as parties before the District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, West Champaran (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') they had a right to move this Court if the ultimate order passed by the Tribunal had gone against them. The writ application, therefore, at the instance of the petitioners, is held to be maintainable.

¶30

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has though assailed the Tribunal's order on several grounds, but at the end of the day, he seems to be more perturbed and concerned that the Tribunal had non-suited the

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.3389 of 2013 (3) dt.06-05-2014

¶32

3/4

¶33

petitioners on the ground of delay/limitation. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case when the petitioners were parties pursuing their remedy before the appropriate forum/authority, they could not have been non-suited by the Tribunal on the ground of delay/limitation.

¶34

This Court has perused the material on record and would find that the approach of the Tribunal itself is erroneous. The Tribunal, in fact, has unnecessarily mixed up the case of many persons whereas it ought to have dealt with the case of the petitioners and others separately. To that extent, case No. 18 of 2012 before the Tribunal has been decided in part wherein it has gone into the merits of some of the candidates and has refused to do so as with regard to the case of the petitioners on account of limitation/delay. That however cannot be a way of disposing of cases by the Tribunal.

¶35

In that view of the matter, this Court would quash the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 18.07.2012 in Case No. 18 of 2012 and would remit the matter back to the Tribunal to hear all the parties in Case No. 18 of 2012 and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law. If the Tribunal feels the necessity of looking into the original records relating to selection/appointment of respondent nos. 12 to 16, the concerned

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.3389 of 2013 (3) dt.06-05-2014

¶37

4/4

¶38

authorities will be under obligation to produce the same. The Collector of West Champaran is hereby also directed to ensure that the concerned Panchayat Secretary produces all the records before the Tribunal within the time limit fixed by the Tribunal.

¶39

This Court would not like to say anything more for the present as it would adversely affect either of the parties on merits but then it is always expected that whatever issues would be raised before the Tribunal by either of the parties, will be examined and

¶40

decided in accordance with law and of course, expeditiously.

¶41

This writ application is, therefore, allowed only to the extent as indicated above.

¶42

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶43

Sujit/-

Mithilesh Kumar and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh Kumar and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bishnu Deo Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Uma Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mohan Kanhaiya Choudhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pramod Kumar Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sri Harendra Singh Vs The Rajendra Agricultural University and Ors.

Ramji Prasad Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.